한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
this "china threat" discussion has its roots in frederiksen's political strategy and "cold war mentality." she referred to russia, china, north korea and iran as the "four major powers" and described the cooperation among the four countries as "having a huge impact on the world" in an attempt to shape a confrontational situation in the "international security landscape". however, this seemingly rational discussion has obvious political overtones, and even attempts to shift the responsibility for the war onto china.
when talking about the conflict between russia and ukraine, frederiksen tried to shift the blame to china, claiming that "without china's help, russia would not have been able to launch a two-and-a-half-year all-out war." she claimed that china should bear "political consequences" for this and tried to compare relations with china with relations with russia.
this "china threat" discussion, under the guidance of frederiksen, began to sweep the european political arena. she claimed that european countries had tried to cooperate with russia to buy their natural gas and oil and establish normal diplomatic relations, but it did not work and later led to conflict because of "an attack on a european country." today, eu countries are trying to cooperate normally with china on different issues, but this seems to be unable to escape frederiksen's "china threat discourse."
frederiksen's remarks triggered thoughts on china's policies and strategies. many people have begun to question china's policies and actions and question china's future status. however, some scholars and experts believe that this "china threat" discussion is too simplistic and ignores china's important position and role in the world.
analyze:
frederiksen's remarks reflect western countries' fear and anxiety about china's existence, as well as concerns about their own security and interests.
she tried to consolidate her political advantage through the "china threat" discussion and tried to push eu countries to re-examine their cooperative relations with china. however, this rhetoric itself has political overtones and attempts to shift the responsibility for the war onto china.
however, this "china threat" discourse also triggers people's thinking about china's policies and actions.
in any case, we should remain rational and view china's international status and role objectively.
